Canada must back two-state solution
In the end, the New Democratic motion on the Middle East was an opportunity squandered.
Billed as an attempt to provide some clarity to Canada’s approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the motion, passed by the House of Commons this week, after the NDP allowed it to be amended substantially by the Liberals, provided just more confusion.
In particular, it was unclear if anything had changed.
That wasn’t supposed to happen. When the motion was introduced, it revolved around a clear question: should Canada recognize Palestine as a state.
Many countries in the world do offer Palestine such recognition. But it is far from universal. The U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a state. Neither does Britain, France or any other member of the G7. Neither does Israel.
But there are reasons why more countries should recognize Palestine. In particular, it would put pressure on Israel to act more sensibly.
Israel has a unique role in the Middle East. By virtue of its victories in three wars, it is treated by the United Nations as the occupying power in at least four regions in the Middle East. This gives it considerable legal authority in Syria’s Golan Heights, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza itself. It can dictate much of what goes on in these territories.
But this status as occupying power also carries considerable obligations. The occupying power cannot arbitrarily dispossess the original inhabitants of their properties. It cannot drive them from their homes. It must treat civilians humanely under terms of the Geneva Accords. It cannot impose collective punishment, that is it cannot penalize entire populations for crimes committed by a few. It cannot deprive populations under its control of food and medical care solely on the basis of their ethnicity.
It was the claim that Israel had broken these rules that led to it being brought before the International Court of Justice on allegations of genocide.
In all of this, Palestine plays a lesser role. Canada, like many other nations, talks to the Palestinians. But because they are not considered by Ottawa to represent a state they are treated less seriously.
This is ironic, given Canada’s history in the region. For it was Canada’s Lester Pearson who first gave voice in 1947 to what has become the UN orthodoxy — that of the two-state solution.
The Pearson formula called for Palestine to be divided into a Jewish state, an Arab state and an international city to run Jerusalem.
The Jewish and Arab states would have equal powers.
Over time, the idea of the twostate solution broke down into what was, in effect, a 1 1 ⁄ -state solution 2 made up of a Jewish state (Israel) plus bits and pieces left over for the Palestinians.
Hamas’s brutal attack last October gave Israeli opponents of the twostate solution, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an excuse to ignore the very idea of a Palestinian state.
That’s why the NDP motion that Canada recognize such a state was worth passing. And it’s why the NDP failure to push forward with its motion, and instead allow it to be amended to death by the Liberals, was so unfortunate.